Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70883 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4299 of 2025 Applicant :- Brijlal Thekedar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devi Dayal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dev Prakash Sharma,G.A.,Priyanka Devi Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Devi Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State and Sri Devi Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the summoning order dated 20.12.2024 along with the entire proceedings in complaint case no. 6561 of 2024 (Mohd. Ali vs. Brijlal Thekedar) U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali Mahoba District Mahoba pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Mahoba. 3. The case of the applicant is that on 04.09.2024 a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant relatable to the dishonouring of a cheque of an amount of Rs. 6 lac bearing no. 000220 dated 25.05.2024 which was presented in the bank and was dishonoured on 03.08.2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 09.08.2024 which is stated to have been served upon the applicant on 14.08.2024 and a complaint was lodged on 04.09.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 20.12.2024 the applicant had been summoned U/s 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal enforcement debt or liability against the applicant. So as to invoke or attract the provision under Section 138 of N.I. Act for the simple reasons that the opposite party no.2 happens to be the accountant of the applicant and he in order to discharge day to day function was given blank cheques. However, he on being forced to give the details of the accounts misused the said cheques while getting it dishonoured intentionally. The submission is that even a complaint was lodged before the police station on 26.09.2024 followed by a first information report dated 30.12.2024 being FIR No. 0692 U/s 191 (2), 352, 351(2) 316 (2) IPC read with section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Thus it is prayed that the summoning order be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised they are referable to defences which cannot be gone at this stage. He further submits that the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is already there. 6. Learned AGA has supported the argument made by the counsel for opposite party no.2. 7. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar. Apparently, the allegations made in the complaint is of dishonouring of a cheque of Rs. 6 lacs dated 25.05.2024 bearing no. 000220 of 03.08.2024 and lodging of issuance of statutory demand notice on 09.08.2024 which is stated to have been served on 14.08.2024 as per the averments in the complaint and filing of the complaint on 04.09.2024. So far as the procedural part in so far as section 138 and section 148 of N.I. Act are concerned, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any infirmity. Now the argument which is sought to be raised referable to the fact that the cheque in question was misutilised and misusused and the relationship of the applicant with the opposite party no.2 is of the principal and the agent and there is nothing on record to show that they were partners, is a matter which is triable not liable to be bestowed attention at this stage when the summons are being issued. As a matter of fact, what is relevant would be the allegations contained in the complaint as well as the fact regarding dishonouring of a cheque and the presumption under section 139 would be also relevant in that regard. Accordingly, no case is made out. As regards, the submissions that the first information report as well as the complaint has been lodged regarding misutilization of the cheque against the opposite party no.2 is concerned, the same would have its own merit at this stage when the trial commences and not at this stage. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the documents appended being the bank statement that amount has already been paid to the applicant is concerned, the same is also not required to be gone into at this stage as the same would be a matter of trial. 8. With the above observations, the present application is rejected. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad